Arñ/93:1

A Response from Sarah Coakley''

This report from a specially-gathered group of American theolo-

gians, both "traditionalist" and "hberal," and ably and charitably
chaired by Professor Ellen Charry, is greatly to be welcomed. It raises
the currently divisive discussion of same-sex desire in the Anglican
Communion to a new level of theological clarity and mutual couriesy,
and for those traits alone it deserves wide ecclesial attention and re-
flection. Not the least of its merits is its incisive clarification of what
might be called the "meta-theological" presumptions that divide tlie
two parties. These divisions are not overcome in the repori—far from
it, as the Responses reveal; but the fact that the hermeneutical, theo-
logical, scientific, and spiritual divergences are so clearly excavated
means that—potentially—the next step could be an even deeper ne-
gotiation of what R. G. Gollingwood (in The Idea of Metaphysics) fa-
mously called "absolute presuppositions." The problem with "abso-
lute presuppositions" is that they are often so deep, and so deeply
held, as to be rendered invisible; the abrogation of them, then, tends
to cause initial emotive ripostes until they can be brought into tlie
realm of rational reflection. This repori fearlessly digs down until each
"spade is turned," and tells us what is to be found there.
The two positions are, however, not at all égal in their choices of
approach. While the traditionalists provide a commendably clear, but
somewhat predictable, account of their own biblical and natural law
reasons for classing homosexuality as a "disorder" and an effect of sin,
the hberals take a most creative and original line (owing much to Eu-
gene Rogers's earlier work in this area). It is not surprising that tlie
traditionalists in their Response are somewhat thrown, if not af-
fronted, by this new liberal approach. For in tmth, it has httle to do
with what is normally called "liberalism" in America, whether in the
context of politics or of theology, and many hberal supporters of gays

* Sarah Coakley is the Norris-Hulse Professor of Divinity at the University of

Cambridge, England. Her publications include Powers and. Submissions: Spiritual-
ity, Philosophy and Gender (Blackwell, 2002), and God, Sexuality and the Self: An
Essay "On the Trinity" (Cambridge University Press, forthcoming 2011). She is an
Anglican priest of the diocese of Ely and a minor canon of Ely Cathedral.

Ill
112 Anglican Theological Review
and lesbians in our churches might hardly know what to do with these
moves. In my short response to the report, then, I choose to comment
on this seismic shift and its potential theological and spiritual signifi-
cance for the future of our church's life.
The insistent emphasis ofthe liberals' approach in this document
is that marriage (whether heterosexual or same-sex) is an ascetical and
lifelong undertaking, not only for the good of the couple concerned
but for the life of the church and of the world. Marriage is in this
sense a "martyrdom"—a witness, both suffering and joyful, to the life
of Christ, and to Christ's love of the body, his church. This line of
thinking in the document takes us back not only to Ephesians 5, but it
reinterprets Romans 9-11 to construe same-sex relationships (in mar-
riage) as being "grafted" into the old order, as the Gentiles were into
the life of Israel. This latter exegetical move is clearly controversial
and question-begging, and immediately becomes a sticking point for
the traditionalists, as we might expect. However, it is important to
stress that the core argument about christologically-motivated asceti-
cism is not dependent on this particular hermeneutical ploy. In fact,
if this line of argument were taken seriously, then it would demand of
the Episcopal Church a serious rethinking of its currently relaxed at-
titude to divorce, even as it simultaneously included the celebration
of same-sex marriage and a reconsideration of the value of celibacy
(for those called to it). Liberal attitudes, as more commonly under-
stood, would be challenged by this line of thinking at various levels.
For example, from this perspective one could not argue for the ac-
ceptance of same-sex relationships on the basis of "rights," or the
"pursuit of happiness"; promiscuity and unfaithfulness would be seen
as the "disorder" destabilizing the church and society, not same-sex
desire. Leniency and laxness, on the other hand, would be contrasted
with the demand for the "arduous discipline" (p. 51) of marriage, only
sustained by grace. The "glue" of society, so weakened by serial faith-
less relationships and broken marriages, would be reconsidered from
a demanding christological perspective.
It is striking that the traditionalists' response to such a set of as-
cetic ideas (arguably more "traditional" than the traditionalists!) con-
tains a renewed attack on eros itself, one reminiscent of the work of
Anders Nygren: "There is eros galore tumed toward degrading, vio-
lent, and abusive purposes. Talk of eros must always have the doctrine
of original sin near at hand" (p. 98).
 ANGLICAN AND ECUMENICAL RESPONSES 113

Let me suggest that the real theological novum in this document is

the liberals' call to a major rethinking of the church's ideas about desire
and love (and their relation)—prior to any decision about same-sex
relationships. Of course "the doctrine of original sin [is] always near at
hand." That does not mean, however, that eros is not capable of divine
use, acceptance, and transformation. At the level of "absolute presup-
positions" this matter of the theological status of eros is probably the
most pressing question for the church's theological life today. I wel-
come this report's excavation of this issue: it helps us see that the erotic
crisis in the church is one for us all.
Copyright of Anglican Theological Review is the property of Anglican Theological Review Inc. and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.